No on-one put it better than the Lebanese in Montreal Canada. "He is an Arab". Arabs are anti-Israel and anti-America. How on earth could less than 6 million Jews living in Israel jeopardize over 1 billion Muslims? It is their rabid hatred and prejudice, thanks to their upbringing and brainwashing by their own clerics. And make no mistake about it. There is no room for Israel on the map, not in the ME, nor elsewhere in the world. That is why Iran needs nuclear weapons. Ray, you are actually doing us a service. You wouldn't be, by any chance, a Mossad agent?

Italian and Spanish fascism while brutal, was never genocidal. Islamo-nazism is a much better definition of ideologies taking firm hold in muslim world. If you do not believe me, go to memritv.org

Ray Hanania's line 'Why didn't one reporter stop and say, “Mr. president? What do you mean by Islamo-Fascists?” ' is brilliantly cast in understaning that the media wants the negative connotation of this statement to stand. However, my opinion as to why Bush was not pressed for an explanation differs considerably from Mr. Hanania. It is not to be complicit in what Hanania sees as an anti-Muslim bias by the media. Quite the contrary. I believe the media likes to use this statement to prove Mr. Bush's anti-Muslim bent. They should have pressed him for clarification to understand that Islamo-fascism exists but that not all Muslims are by any stretch fascist. To understand that Hizbullah and their vision of the Middle East is indeed fascist and would not afford Mr. Hanania any room to speak his mind either. so kudos Hanania for recognizing the media's inability to clarify, but you need to recognize that it is the media's bias against Israel and for that matter anything Bush that made them not clarify his statement. They want to paint Bush as anti-Muslim because it makes him out to be a bad guy. Nevermind that any Muslim who wants to can practice their religion freely in the good ol' U.S. of A.

the price to pay for angel's wings. There's more to love than meets the eye or anything a King could buy. Bush is on a high horse and can say what he wants without censure. The same is true of the Christianites and the Israelites. Religions have always been a football that is passed back and forth. These guys would hate to see their people protected and secure and having fun. The men in the funny hats make the rules and propaganda and the fools follow it.

Ray seems to take issue with the term "Islamo-fascism ". While this is in fact a startling accurate term . How else can you refer to a large group of people ( Muslims ) who base their identity on hate , and destruction , of another group ( Jewish ) . When compared to the Nazis of the 1930's - 1940's in almost all aspects , the parallels are alarming . From the intolerance ( antisemitism ) that exists in the minds of the Arabs , which is taught in the government schools ( and private religious schools ), to the antisemitism published in the government controlled media ( newspapers , TV , Radio ) on a daily basis. After all where else can we see cartoons of chidren blowing themselves up , with their heads rolling off , killing the Jews , on a Sesame Street style Arab TV show ! With little or no condemnation from the Arab world . And were suppose to beleive " Islamo-fasctist " is a horrible slight against Muslims! Pleeease save it for the choir , because no one else is buying it , the non-Muslim world is waking up to the sad truth . This term Islamo-facsist has been around for at least a few years ( first by Michael Savage ) . It is about time it finally is making it to the mainstream media. While Ray has never ( to my knowledge ) ever condemned any of the hateful speech that comes out of the Arab media on a daily basis , yet this one term " Islamo-fascist " seems to provoke the outrage in the Arab world. The truth hurts!!! It is funny how this causes Ray to blame Bush for the problems of the Middle East.( ME ) After all while no modern President has been able to resolve these issues , and the Arabs refuse to confront or condemn the vile hate coming out of the ME ( because they fear being judged traitors ) , it is easy to blame Bush rather than look inward and confront your own problems . At least now a real debate can begin , and I look forward to it .

The term Islamo-Fascists" is not only accurate but essential in describing the nature of the enemy that the free world faces. Terror groups like Al-Qaeda, Hizbulla, and Hamas specifically use Islam, the Koran, and Sharia (the body of Islamic Law) to justify mass murder of "Zionist-crusaders", and so the descriptor "Islamo" is certainly crucial to understanding the nature of these groups and their intentions. The descriptor "Islamo" should be no more offensive to mainstream muslims than the term "Jewish extremist" or "Christian Fanatic" would be to a law abiding Jew or Christian, respectively. Failure to properly identify the enemy will only confuse the public, impede security readiness, and reduce the ability to intercept operatives and neutralize terror plans. We mustn't forget that if anybody is giving Islam a bad name, it's the likes of Bin-Ladin, Ahmadinejad, and Nasarallah, and certainly not George Bush.

Western leaders have to find a category to classify valiant terrorist organizations because they are trying to create a distinction between moderate Arabs and Islamic Jaheeds. They cannot call the enemy Islamic-Jaheeds as too many Arabs believe in Jihad and that makes most Arabs an enemy. With that said, I agree that the media should be asking more questions. I don't have an issue with you bashing Israeli policy, but I would have hoped that a self proclaimed Arab moderate would see a problem with Hizbollah's activities and their mockery of the democratically elected Lebanese government who cannot control its population due to Hizbollah. I hope you're calling them “valiant” out of intimidation vs. admiration Ray. If the moderate Palestinians want to have a Hizbollah equivalent that will override their government’s authority then how will you ever live in peace with another democracy?

To Ray, Hezbollah is "stubborn militia that had fought valiantly." Gee and all this time I thought HA was a terrorist group who hid missiles in civilian living rooms, used their own people as human shields, shot 4,000 rockets at Israeli civilians, and handed out millions in counterfeit US dollars. But to Ray they are brave and valiant. Ray, you are a sick man.

Or is it that you are not a credible journalist in the least, and he would never meet with you?

Terrorism isn't our President's fault. He's the one actually doing something about it. And, they ARE Islamo-Fascists, radical religious extremists with no respect for human life. You're just trying to be politically correct or you've got your brown tie on. Just because we don't like terrorism doesn't mean we are against the entire Arab world - just the ones that want to kill us. In fact, the news media hasn't been kind to the President at all - don't you read the papers? Past presidents didn't do a thing to stand up to terrorism-nobody's going to like the one that stands up to it and says 'no more'. It isn't a popularity contest. The American people don't stand for Islamo-Fascism in their country or those of their allies. Too bad you can't take a stand, Ray.

or Israel, any negative term is embraced without question. try criticizing thier press!

This war has finally been framed with the proper language. The "war on terror" was ridiculous, since you can't be at war with a "tactic"......you are at war with the perpetrators and their ideology. Broadly speaking, Islamofascism is a good start. At least we don't have to choke anymore on the "religion of peace" and "a hijacked religion".....people are beginning to see the big picture, and that's why groups like this seek to control the very language we use to describe our enemy. Everyone knows if you can't NAME AND DEFINE your enemy, you can't win. Ray Hanania seems to be in some parallel universe, stating that the MSM is anti-Arab or anti-Muslim. Most people call CNN the "Crescent News Network". Our news stories are so sanitized and controlled, they won't even say "Muslim" when talking about terror busts or investigations, riots in France, or even individual Jihad attacks that are happening here in the US. Who calls the shots on that, Ray? CAIR?Reporting the truth about Muslim violence and terrorism in the world doesn't make the REPORTER hateful. It makes the EVENTS hateful. In the US we are treated daily with the very unambiguous violent call for our death by chanting Muslims in Islamic countries. Today we we treated with an exhortation to convert to Islam by Al-Qaeda. I'm sorry to hear the word Islmofacsim disturbs ya'll.

"Islamofascist" is a Bush sop to the NEOCONS he had dumped at begining of second term and now had to take back in because of his low, low polls. It is a play on "Zio-fascists" used so much in Europe refering to abuse of Palestinians. Now that term is legitimate in the sense that the Islamic radicals are practicing the theory of "faces." The key principle is that a reed alone is easily bent, but when tightly tied by discipline they form a bundle no one can break. It was the Romans' symbol. That's what Hezbollah and alQaeda are trying to do with Shia and Sunni Muslims respectively. But you know, trying to put Muslims into "faces" is as impossible as trying to do it with Jews!

THANKS to those who are speaking up and asking YNet to stop Ray's nonsense and replace him. If they haven't done so so far, I wonder what there agenda is? As far as saying they are not Islamo Facists. I don't know. Do you see any shining examples of democracy in the Mid East except Israel? I don't. No fair if you have to look under rocks. OK, case closed. GO HOME RAY! Get some sleep. Try again. We know its a challenge.

If Ray is a Mossad agent, he must be eating too many of those great Chicago kosher hot dogs. They swelled his brain. Even though good goes in, nothing good gets out. P.S. Writing you soon. I still think it's Rays sick, personal motivation that keeps him going. If he was really a Mossad agent, they would have sent him on a suicide mission by now. If they just put him here to entertain us, at least the Olmert administration tried to do something it thought it could hande.

GOOD LOGIC AND GREAT WRITING. HOW REFRESSING!

I disagree with essentially the whole article, but I wish to pick up only on one point. "That single act of turning his back on the Middle East conflict and abandoning the process that had been meticulously established by nearly every past presidential predecessor" Ah, the "process of his predecessors"? Like Clinton? Could we just review a bit of recent history - After 8 years of pandering to the Arabs and pressuring Israel to make concessions and more-than-generous offers - the Oslo Accords, Camp David etc., what did Clinton achieve? Oh yes, 3 months before he left office, the Second Intifada was launched - the most violent and long-running palestinian terrorist offensive against Israel yet. Is this the "process of his predecessors" that Bush has not continues? The process of spending years pandering to Arabs and getting absolutely NOWHERE?

actually pooped in their pants when they were caught by IDF troops. They were valiant alright when they were hiding in their holes, but when they were out in the open... And that is not what the Israeli press said, but officers and soldiers returning from battle. And one more thing - enough already with the accusations that the IAF was targetting women and children. Pilots refused to target houses or positions whence Hezbollah were firing rockets into Israel, BECAUSE of the civilians present at those sites. So ground forces had to be sent in only to be ambushed, which accounts for the high number of casualties. The Hezbos used Red Cross, UN and even IDF uniforms. This is how brave they were. Liars and cheats!!! I would like to see an independent body count, because I cannot forget Siniorita sobbing over 40 victims killed at Houla (in front of the Arab League ministers), which were in fact ONE... A flat tyre prevented Green Helmet from producing the already rotting bodies which were kept in the Tyre Hospital body bank. And if anyone still has any doubts as to how exactly Hezbos knew where to attack IDF troops, here is your answer: http://www.theweeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/622bqwjn.asp What did you do in the war, UNIFIL? You broadcast Israeli troop movements. by Lori Lowenthal Marcus 09/04/2006, Volume 011, Issue 47 DURING THE RECENT month-long war between Hezbollah and Israel, U.N. "peacekeeping" forces made a startling contribution: They openly published daily real-time intelligence, of obvious usefulness to Hezbollah, on the location, equipment, and force structure of Israeli troops in Lebanon. UNIFIL--the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, a nearly 2,000-man blue-helmet contingent that has been present on the Lebanon-Israel border since 1978--is officially neutral. Yet, throughout the recent war, it posted on its website for all to see precise information about the movements of Israeli Defense Forces soldiers and the nature of their weaponry and materiel, even specifying the placement of IDF safety structures within hours of their construction. New information was sometimes only 30 minutes old when it was posted, and never more than 24 hours old. Meanwhile, UNIFIL posted not a single item of specific intelligence regarding Hezbollah forces. Statements on the order of Hezbollah "fired rockets in large numbers from various locations" and Hezbollah's rockets "were fired in significantly larger numbers from various locations" are as precise as its coverage of the other side ever got. This war was fought on cable television and the Internet, and a lot of official information was available in real time. But the specific military intelligence UNIFIL posted could not be had from any non-U.N. source. The Israeli press--always eager to push the envelope--did not publish the details of troop movements and logistics. Neither the European press nor the rest of the world media, though hardly bastions of concern for the safety of Israeli troops, provided the IDF intelligence details that UNIFIL did. A search of Israeli government websites failed to turn up the details published to the world each day by the U.N. Inquiries made of various Israeli military and government representatives and analysts yielded near unanimous agreement that at least some of UNIFIL's postings, in the words of one retired senior military analyst, "could have exposed Israeli soldiers to grave danger." These analysts, including a current high ranking military official, noted that the same intelligence would not have been provided by the U.N. about Israel's enemies.

Good to see you, Stewart. Yeah, also 007 (you know, effes - zero). Hope he finds solice, as he puts it, in MUD, RPG type.

Sure enough, a review of every single UNIFIL web posting during the war shows that, while UNIFIL was daily revealing the towns where Israeli soldiers were located, the positions from which they were firing, and when and how they had entered Lebanese territory, it never described Hezbollah movements or locations with any specificity whatsoever. Compare the vague "various locations" language with this UNIFIL posting from July 25: Yesterday and during last night, the IDF moved significant reinforcements, including a number of tanks, armored personnel carriers, bulldozers and infantry, to the area of Marun Al Ras inside Lebanese territory. The IDF advanced from that area north toward Bint Jubayl, and south towards Yarun. Or with the posting on July 24, in which UNIFIL revealed that the IDF stationed between Marun Al Ras and Bint Jubayl were "significantly reinforced during the night and this morning with a number of tanks and armored personnel carriers." This partiality is inconsistent not only with UNIFIL's mission but also with its own stated policies. In a telling incident just a few years back, UNIFIL vigorously insisted on its "neutral ity"--at Israel's expense. On October 7, 2000, three IDF soldiers were kidnapped by Hezbollah just yards from a UNIFIL shelter and dragged across the border into Lebanon, where they disappeared. The U.N. was thought to have videotaped the incident or its immediate aftermath. Rather than help Israel rescue its kidnapped soldiers by providing this evidence, however, the U.N. obstructed the Israeli investigation. For months the Israeli government pleaded with the U.N. to turn over any videotape that might shed light on the location and condition of its missing men. And for nine months the U.N. stonewalled, insisting first that no such tape existed, then that just one tape existed, and eventually conceding that there were two more tapes. During those nine months, clips from the videotapes were shown on Syrian and Lebanese television. Explaining their eventual about-face, U.N. officials said the decision had been made by the on-site commanders that it was not their responsibility to provide the material to Israel; indeed, that to do so would violate the peacekeeping mandate, which required "full impartiality and objectivity." The U.N. report on the incident was adamant that its force had "to ensure that military and other sensitive information remains in their domain and is not passed to parties to a conflict." Stymied in its efforts to recover the men while they were still alive, Israel ultimately agreed to an exchange in January 2004: It released 429 Arab prisoners and detainees, among them convicted terrorists, and the bodies of 60 Lebanese decedents and members of Hezbollah, in exchange for the bodies of the three soldiers. Blame for the deaths of those three Israelis can be laid, at least in part, at the feet of the U.N., which went to the wall defending its inviolable pledge never to share military intelligence about one party with another. UNIFIL has just done what it then vowed it could never do. Once again, it has acted to shield one side in the conflict and to harm the other. Why is this permitted? For that matter, how did the U.N. obtain such detailed and timely military intelligence in the first place, before broadcasting it for Israel's enemies to see? Lori Lowenthal Marcus is president of the Zionist Organization of America, Greater Philadelphia District. Now I demanded explanations from the UN, but so far they have not provided any. Perhaps if more people slam them with protests they will perhaps offer some more lame explanations, but perhaps feel some shame. I am no expert is International Law, but this to me looks like trampling on every single rule and principle that holds the democratic world together. I wonder if there really any justification why this extinct organism should not be taken off life support.

Good support for your short essay. I've seen those articles. I can't remember, but I think they were also in the Jewish World Review. It is free on the Web and so are the subscriptions, but a donation really helps the tireless editor. Tell YNet to send you Ray's paycheck this week. You had to do his research for him. YNet's agenda (YOU LISTENING YNET) is probably this. They charge for advertising by the traffic on the site. Ray gets more traffic than a clown at the circus. Lennin was right about useful idiots. YNet even figured out how to cash in on one. But aren't we having fun!

As I listened to a programme on Lebanon this evening, I heard many Lebanese insisting that Hizbollah is a RESISTANCE group, not terrorists. They are fighting Israel's occupation of Lebanese land -- Shebaa Farms (there are Lebanese citizens who have deeds that show they own property) as well as fighting israeli incursions on Lebanese territory and air space (e.g. all those war planes that fly over Lebanon on a regular basis). Here again the use of terminology reflects a bias. If Palestinians are being illegally and immorally oppressed by the Israeli government, then they have a right to RESIST. If Israel uses brutal force, I'm afraid, there should be no surprise that the Palestinians respond in kind. I don't condone violent methods, but I'm not the one being attacked by the Israeli government. So I think the term "terrorists" is an example of a skewed and hatefully anti-Arab and Muslim coverage by the media, as Ray talks about in his column. In light of what I have been learning in the last several weeks, I consider these "terrorists" RESISTANCE fighters.

Israel is an "ethnocracy." It is a Jewish state, sort of like Iran is a muslim state. The word "democratic" is added to make it sound nicer. Israel's Basic Law of Freedom and Human Dignity neglects to mention "equality" as one of its principles. Does that mean equality only applies to Jews inside Israel, but not to one in five Israeli citizens who are Palestinian? Policy changes in Israel ban the marriage between Palestinians from the occupied territories and Israelis, i.e. Palestinians with Israeli citizenship. This is to prevent "right of return through the back door." I read at an Israeli site www.think-israel.org that, "Reverse immigration is the best goal. National survival trumps critics' notion of political correctness." Sounds very racist, like something that would happen in an ethnocracy. So let's start labelling the Zionist state of Israel properly and call it an Ethnocracy, and NOT a democracy. Lebanon was more of a democracy than Israel is. Let's start using words correctly and not skew them to favour Israel.

I encourage everyone to use this term all the time. The Muslim terrorists are facists who are oppressing and murdering people all over the world just because they are not Muslim. The Muslims in America are pressuring President Bush to apologize which he hasn't and should never do. I have gotten members of my family and friends to use the term Islamofacist and they are now spreading it around. It can't be stopped no matter what the Islmofacist and Ray say.

to hold a lot of love. let's bring it here and spread it there among the stars above. getting a lot of flak for the hizbullies? Bush has to rely on the propaganda spinners and in most cases it is apropos. pull the curtain away from these guys and you find little substance. Your next blog topic should be the ten commandments of propaganda, i.e. 'thou shall not shill'. keep it seriously funny, that's your, uh, schtick.

Bush got it right. 911 and Lebanon/Gaza are western democracy's Wake-Up calls! Whrer are the Arab peace-seekers? Bunkered down and afraid to be heard? At least debate is alive in the West. Islamo Fascists delared that Israel/USA are Infidels...An Arab Crusade so declared is what Bush has correctly named......